U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–010

" SENATE ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2003

108–38

Calendar No. 76

AIR CARGO SECURITY IMPROVEMENT 

ACT

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION

ON

S. 165

APRIL 24, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 11, 2003


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Staff Director and General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

(II) 

Calendar No. 76

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 108–38

AIR CARGO SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

APRIL 24, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Filed, under the authority of the order of the Senate of April 11, 2003

Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 165]

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 165) ‘‘A Bill To improve air cargo 

security’’, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with amendments and recommends that the bill (as amended) do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 165, 

as reported, is to enhance the security of cargo transported by air, 

particularly aboard passenger aircraft. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

On November 16, 2001, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in response to the terrorist attacks 

on September 11th of that year. The Act, which was signed into 

law on November 19, 2001, implemented a new regime for aviation 

security and created the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) to oversee 

security for all modes of transportation. The TSA has since been 

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ATSA 

(P.L. 107–71) contained numerous provisions and deadlines designed to increase aviation security targeted at the safety and security of airline passengers. 

With respect to the security of air cargo, ATSA contained two key 

provisions. The first dealt with passenger aircraft and required 

2

that the TSA provide for the screening of all cargo and mail that 

will be carried aboard such aircraft (section 110). Almost all passenger flights carry cargo alongside luggage in the belly of the 

plane. Such cargo can encompass anything from pallets of computer chips to refrigerated cartons of chicken. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimate, approximately 22 

percent of all air cargo loaded in the United States in 2000 was 

carried on passenger flights. 

ATSA required that all checked airline bags be screened by explosive detection systems by December 31, 2002, which was later 

extended to 2003 for a limited number of airports. A similar timetable was not specified for screening cargo. 

The second provision required that a system must be in operation as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of ATSA 

(section 10), to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure the security of 

all cargo that is to be transported in all-cargo aircraft . 

I. ACTIVITY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

The air cargo system involves numerous participants that all require some level of security oversight. Typically, a shipper takes 

packages to an indirect air carrier (IAC, also known as a freight 

forwarder). An IAC is defined as any person or entity, excluding an 

air carrier, that engages indirectly in the transportation of property 

by air, and uses the services of a passenger air carrier. This does 

not include the United States Postal Service. The IAC may consolidate packages from many shippers into single containers. The IAC 

then uses trucks, either its own or hired, to deliver the bulk freight 

to air carriers for transport. 

Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FAA was generally 

responsible for oversight of civil aviation security. The bombing of 

Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 led to the passage of the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, which required the FAA to begin an 

accelerated 18-month research and development effort to find an effective explosives detection system to screen baggage and cargo. 

Following the 1996 crashes of ValuJet flight 592 and TWA flight 

800, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security 

was created to assess vulnerabilities of safety and security confronting aviation. The Commission recommended that the FAA implement a comprehensive plan to address the threat of explosives 

and other threatening objects in cargo and to work with industry 

to develop new initiatives in this endeavor. The FAA subsequently 

created Federal and industry partnerships, the Baseline Working 

Group, and later, the Cargo Working Group, to find ways improve 

air cargo security. 

Under the FAA’s program, front-line responsibility for screening 

air cargo fell on two groups: the carriers and IACs. Both were required to adopt and carry out FAA-approved security programs. 

The key element of FAA’s cargo security program before September 11, 2001, was the Known Shipper Program. A known shipper is essentially one that has an established reputation and thus 

is ‘‘known’’ to the industry and to the FAA. This program allowed 

an air carrier or IAC to transport a package from a known shipper 

with no more screening than an examination of its exterior. Packages from unknown shippers would be screened by X-ray or physically inspected before being placed aboard a passenger aircraft. 

3

Under the FAA’s cargo security program, IACs were not allowed to 

accept packages from unknown shippers. If the IAC does not have 

an existing relationship with the business that seeks to ship goods, 

it must follow established regulations to ensure the company is a 

trustworthy business. The FAA’s security oversight and implementation responsibility of the Known Shipper Program was transferred through ATSA to the TSA. 

Before September 11, 2001, the DOT Inspector General (IG) had 

been conducting tests of cargo security. The IG found that air carriers and indirect air carriers were not always complying with the 

FAA’s Known Shipper Program, and that the FAA had not developed and implemented an adequate policy or oversight system to 

ensure compliance. 

II. ACTIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

A number of important changes were implemented after September 11, 2001, regarding the shipment of cargo on passenger air 

carriers. These changes included the requirement that only cargo 

from known shippers could be accepted on passenger air carriers 

and all cargo from unknown shippers and mail weighing more than 

16 ounces had to be diverted to all-cargo air carriers. 

The Known Shipper Program continues to be TSA’s primary 

means of compliance with ATSA screening mandates today. According to the agency, it has strengthened the process through which 

a shipper becomes ‘‘known’’. The TSA has developed a national 

database of known shippers and is re-validating every business in 

the known shipper program. 

Many of the other changes implemented by TSA are sensitive or 

classified information. 

III. AIR CARGO ISSUES AND CONCERNS

The IG has expressed some concerns that the TSA’s cargo security program is continuing to rely on the Known Shipper Program, 

which has weaknesses, and that very little cargo is actually 

screened. The IG believes that TSA must reevaluate its program to 

determine whether current procedures should be retained, identify 

new principles and controls that should be added, and develop a 

strategic plan to screen all cargo. The IG also is recommending 

that, until screening of all cargo is feasible, TSA develop and implement a plan for random screening of cargo using x-ray, canines, or 

explosives detection equipment. In addition, the IG advocates a requirement that a provider of cargo transportation lose its certification when TSA inspections and testing have continuously found 

the provider in noncompliance with cargo security requirements. 

The size and nature of air cargo can vary widely. Airlines are financially dependent on cargo, which carries higher profit margins 

than passenger traffic. One of the key problems with any attempt 

to screen all cargo on passenger aircraft at this time is that any 

type of physical inspection or electronic screening would be extremely expensive and time-consuming. Some industry observers 

believe that any changes causing additional expense or delay to the 

air cargo system could cause widespread disruption to United 

States businesses, which have grown dependent on moving goods 

rapidly, as well as creating further financial difficulties for the 

troubled United States airline industry. 

4

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 165 would provide for several steps to improve the security of 

air cargo, particularly that which is carried aboard passenger aircraft. The TSA would be required to develop a strategic plan to ensure that all air cargo is screened, inspected, or otherwise made secure. TSA also would be required to develop a system for the regular inspection of air cargo shipping facilities. A database of known 

shippers would be established in order to bolster the Known Shipper Program. Indirect air carriers could have their certificates revoked if TSA finds that they are not adhering to security laws or 

regulations. The existing Federal security program for indirect air 

carriers would be reviewed and assessed for possible improvements. TSA would develop a security training program for persons 

who handle air cargo. All-cargo carriers would be required to develop security plans that would be subject to approval by the TSA. 

S. 165 also would alter a provision in ATSA to expand the requirements of background checks for alien flight school applicants 

to include all aircraft instead of aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or 

more. 

S. 165 also would require a number of studies to be undertaken 

by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 165 was introduced by Senators Hutchison and Feinstein on 

January 15, 2003. It is nearly identical to a title that was contained in legislation passed by the Committee last year, S. 2949, 

the Aviation Security Improvement Act, which was sponsored by 

then Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain. S. 2949 

was passed by unanimous consent in the full Senate on November 

18, 2002. The cargo-related provision represented a consensus 

based on individual bills introduced by Senators Snowe (S. 2656) 

and Hutchison (S. 2668) during the second session of the 107th 

Congress. 

A number of amendments to S. 165 were adopted during the 

Committee’s Executive Session on March 13, 2003, before it was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. Senator Wyden offered an amendment 

requiring a report on the proposed Computer Assisted Passenger 

Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II) and its impact upon privacy and 

civil liberties. Senator Boxer offered several amendments, including 

requiring the issuance of guidelines for detecting false identification at airports, evaluating blast-resistant cargo containers, reviewing how to best defend turbo and jet passenger aircraft from ManPortable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), and allowing cargo pilots to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program. 

Senator Nelson offered an amendment requiring background 

checks of alien flight school applicants, without regard to the maximum certificated weight of the aircraft for which they seek training, and to require a report on the effectiveness of this requirement. All of the amendments were agreed to by voice vote. Many 

of these issues were included in S. 2949. 

5

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office:

APRIL 16, 2003. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed estimate for S. 165, the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley and Ken 

Johnson. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 165—Air Cargo Security Improvement Act 

Summary: S. 165 would impose new duties on the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) within the Department of Homeland 

Security. The bill would require the TSA to regularly inspect air 

shipping facilities, expand the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program 

by allowing pilots of air cargo aircraft to be armed, establish an industry-wide database of cargo shippers, and create a security training program for air cargo handlers. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 165 would cost $417 million over the 

2004–2008 period. Enacting S. 165 would not affect direct spending 

or revenues. 

S. 165 would allow eligible cargo pilots, regardless of state laws, 

to carry firearms within and across state borders and would protect 

those pilots and air carriers from liability for certain actions. These 

provisions would expand existing intergovernmental mandates as 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates, however, that these provisions would impose no costs on 

state, local, or tribal governments. Thus, new mandate costs would 

not exceed the threshold established by that act ($59 million in 

2003, adjusted annually for inflation). The remaining provisions of 

the bill contain no intergovernmental mandates. 

S. 165 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA on carriers that transport cargo and facilities that provide 

flight training to foreign candidates. The cost to comply with those 

mandates would depend on the standards to be developed after enactment. However, based on information on current industry practices from the TSA and industry representatives, CBO expects that 

the costs to comply with the mandates would not exceed the annual 

threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($117 

million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation).

6

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 165 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level ....................................................................... 80 83 86 89 92

Estimated outlays ......................................................................................... 68 83 85 89 92

Basis of estimate 

CBO estimates implementing S. 165 would cost $417 million over 

the 2004–2008 period. A description of the costs in provided below. 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 165 will be enacted by the 

end of fiscal year 2003 and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each year. We also assume that these appropriations 

would be adjusted to reflect anticipated inflation for each year. The 

estimated costs are based on information from the Transportation 

Security Administration and the Air Line Pilots Association. 

Inspection of air shipping facilities and training cargo handlers 

S. 165 would require the TSA to establish a system for regular 

inspections of shipping facilities that handle air cargo to ensure 

that appropriate security protocols are observed. Under current 

law, the TSA employs about 50 cargo security inspectors. To inspect every air cargo facility once a year, TSA estimates that it 

would need to hire 500 inspectors. CBO estimates that each inspector would cost about $120,000 each year, including the cost of 

training and supervision. Hence, CBO estimates that this provision 

would cost about $50 million in 2004 and about $290 million over 

the 2004–2008 period. The bill also would require the TSA to create a security training program for air cargo handlers. Based on information from the TSA, CBO estimates that creating such a program would cost about $250,000.

Arming cargo pilots 

CBO estimates that TSA would need about $16 million in 2004 

and $83 million over the 2004–2008 period to arm and equip pilots 

of cargo aircraft. Under current law, the TSA trains and equips pilots on passenger aircraft to carry firearms as federal flight deck 

officers. The bill would expand that program to include pilots of 

cargo aircraft. Based on information from the Air Line Pilots Association, CBO estimates that about 25 percent of the 8,000 active 

cargo pilots would apply and qualify for the program. CBO expects 

that the number of participants in the program would remain relatively steady over time as pilots retire who are replaced by new 

participants. 

We estimate that the program would spend an average of about $8,000 for each federal flight deck officer, including the cost of 

weapons, ammunition, training, and travel. Because all pilots 

would receive updated training and equipment, such costs would 

continue each year. CBO estimates that it would cost an additional 

$500,000 each year to maintain a staff of about six people to manage the expanded program. 

7

Database of cargo shippers 

S. 165 would require the TSA to establish an industry-wide database of air cargo shippers that use passenger aircraft. More than 

50 air carriers transport air cargo on passenger aircraft. The largest carriers of air cargo conduct business with nearly 2 million 

shippers per day. Because the population of shippers would change 

each year, the costs of maintaining a database of known shippers 

would be ongoing. Based on the number of shippers that would 

need to be tracked and the cost of private systems to track shippers, CBO estimates that maintaining an industry-wide database 

of known shippers would cost about $10 million dollars a year. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 165 

would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand participation in the federal flight deck program. The bill would permit 

deputized cargo pilots to carry firearms into any state, regardless 

of state firearm laws, and would extend liability protection to eligible carriers and cargo pilots for damages resulting from the pilot’s 

defense of the aircraft (with some exceptions). The increase in the 

type of pilots eligible to carry firearms and afforded the liability 

protection are expansions of existing mandates as defined in 

UMRA because they expand the scope of preemptions of state firearm and liability laws. CBO estimates, however, that such preemptions would not affect state budgets because, while they would limit 

the application of state law, they would impose no duties on states 

that would result in additional spending. 

The remaining provisions of S. 165 contain no intergovernmental 

mandates as defined in UMRA. However, airports could be indirectly affected by provisions that would authorize TSA to install 

machinery and systems to enhance security. For example, airports 

might need to give up space to accommodate security improvements. CBO cannot predict exactly how airports would be affected 

because regulations regarding such enhancements have yet to be 

implemented. However, any resulting costs likely would not be 

large. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 165 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on air carriers that 

transport cargo and on facilities that provide flight training to foreign candidates. The costs to comply with those mandates would 

depend on standards to be developed after enactment. However, 

based on information on current industry practices from the TSA 

and industry representatives, CBO expects that the costs to comply 

with the mandates would not exceed the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($117 million in 2003, 

adjusted annually for inflation). 

S. 165 would require air carriers that operate all-cargo aircraft 

to establish and implement a security plan. The requirements in 

the security plan would be based on standards to be set by the 

Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. According to industry representatives, many businesses have already undertaken several measures to upgrade security. To the extent that future security regulations mirror those measures, the industry would not 

bear substantial additional costs associated with the mandate. 

Based on information on industry practices from the TSA and representatives for air carriers transporting cargo, CBO expects that 

the costs of compliance would not be great. 

8

Current law requires facilities that provide flight training to submit certain information to the Attorney General on foreign candidates requesting initial training to operate aircraft weighing 

12,500 pounds or more. S. 165 would require such training facilities to submit that information on foreign candidates requesting 

initial training on any aircraft, regardless of size. Based on information from the Department of Justice and representatives of 

flight training facilities, CBO estimates that the incremental cost 

to comply with this mandate would be under $2 million annually. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Hadley and Ken 

Johnson; impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Greg 

Waring; impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 165 is intended to improve aviation security by making modifications to P.L. 107–71, the Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act (ATSA). The bill affects TSA and other entities already subject 

to TSA rules and regulations, and therefore the number of persons 

covered should be consistent with the current levels of individuals 

impacted under the provisions that are addressed in the bill. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 165 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the nation’s 

economy. It is anticipated that Sections 2 through 6 would have 

positive economic impacts to their respective areas, and should provide significant support to the aviation industry. The bill addresses 

cargo security and would authorize the necessary funding to establish a system that ensures all air cargo is secure by requiring TSA 

and the air cargo industry to take steps to protect the system. 

PRIVACY

S. 165 would have minimal effect on the privacy rights of individuals, but a provision on identification training raises the issue of 

a person proving their identity, potentially with the aid of technology. The use of biometrics and other identifiers raise a number 

of questions that need to be addressed by TSA to ensure that the 

privacy rights of individuals are protected. Senator Wyden’s provision is intended to ensure privacy for passenger screening. 

PAPERWORK

The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in paperwork burdens resulting from the passage of this legislation. In 

those areas where the bill does require additional paperwork, it is 

aimed at improving the security of the national air transportation 

system. S.165 would require the establishment of a database to improve the system by which known shippers of cargo are identified, 

9

and would require reports to Congress on several security matters 

addressed by other provisions. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 states the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Air Cargo Security Improvement Act.’’. 

Section 2. Inspection of cargo aboard passenger aircraft 

Section 2 instructs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish systems to screen, inspect, or otherwise ensure 

the security of all cargo that is to be transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or all-cargo aircraft in air 

transportation and intrastate air transportation. The Under Secretary is directed to create a strategic plan to accomplish this requirement. 

Section 3. Regular inspections of air cargo shipping facilities 

Section 3 instructs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish a system for the regular inspection of shipping 

facilities for shipments of cargo transported in air transportation or 

intrastate air transportation to ensure that appropriate security 

controls, systems, and protocols are observed, while entering into 

arrangements with the civil aviation authorities, or other appropriate officials, of foreign countries to ensure that inspections are 

conducted on a regular basis at shipping facilities for cargo transported in air transportation to the United States. 

The Under Secretary may increase the number of inspectors as 

necessary to implement the requirements of title 49. It also amends 

chapter 449 of title49, United States Code, by adding ‘‘44922. Regular inspections of air cargo shipping facilities.’’

Section 4. Cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft 

Section 4 requires an industry-wide ‘‘known shipper’’ database 

pilot program. Such a program, which is voluntary, is currently in 

use, and this section is intended to reinforce TSA’s authority to 

continue and expand such a pilot program and use the results to 

improve the ‘‘known shipper’’ program. Further, the Under Secretary is directed to conduct random audits, investigations, and inspections of indirect air carrier facilities to determine if the indirect 

air carriers are meeting the security requirements of this title. The 

Under Secretary may take such actions as may be appropriate to 

promote and ensure compliance with the security standards established under this title and shall notify the Secretary of Transportation of any indirect air carrier that fails to meet such security 

standards. 

The Secretary, as appropriate, shall suspend or revoke any certificate or authority issued to an indirect air carrier immediately 

upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary. Any indirect air 

carrier whose certificate is suspended or revoked under this provision may appeal the suspension or revocation in accordance with 

procedures established under this title for the appeal of suspensions and revocations. 

10

In implementing air cargo security requirements under this title, 

the Under Secretary may take into consideration the extraordinary 

air transportation needs of small or isolated communities and 

unique operational characteristics of carriers that serve those communities. 

The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall assess 

the security aspects of the indirect air carrier program, and report 

the results of the assessment, together with any recommendations 

for necessary modifications of the program to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House 

of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The 

Under Secretary may submit the report and recommendations in 

classified form. The Senate recommends industry involvement in 

any assessment of an indirect air carrier program. 

The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall report 

to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on random screening, audits, and investigations of air cargo security programs based on threat assessments and other relevant information. The report may be submitted in classified form. There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of Transportation such sums as may be necessary 

to carry out this section. 

Section 5. Training program for cargo handlers 

Section 5 requires the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish a training program for any persons that handle 

air cargo to ensure that the cargo is properly handled and safeguarded from security breaches. 

Section 6. Cargo carried aboard all-cargo aircraft 

Section 6 instructs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish a program requiring that air carriers operating 

all-cargo aircraft have an approved plan for the security of their air 

operations area, the cargo placed aboard such aircraft, and persons 

having access to their aircraft on the ground or in flight. The plan 

shall include provisions for (1) security of each carrier’s air operations areas and cargo acceptance areas at the airports served; (2) 

background security checks for all employees with access to the air 

operations area; (3) appropriate training for all employees and contractors with security responsibilities; (4) appropriate screening of 

all flight crews and persons transported aboard all-cargo aircraft; 

(5) security procedures for cargo placed on all-cargo aircraft; and 

(6) additional measures deemed necessary and appropriate by the 

Under Secretary. 

The program will be proposed within 90 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act and the Under Secretary of Transportation 

for Security shall distribute the proposed program, on a confidential basis, to those air carriers and other employers to which the 

program will apply. Any person to which the proposed program is 

distributed under paragraph (1) may submit comments on the proposed program to the Under Secretary not more than 60 days after 

it is received. The Under Secretary of Transportation shall issue a 

final program not later than 45 days after the last date on which 

11

comments may be submitted. The final program shall contain time 

frames for the plans to be implemented by each air carrier or employer to which it applies. 

Section 7. Report on passenger prescreening program 

Section 7 instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit 

a report within 90 days to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the potential 

impacts of the Transportation Security Administration’s proposed 

Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) on 

United States citizens’ privacy and civil liberties. 

Section 8. Modification requirements regarding training to operate 

aircraft 

Section 8 extends background checks of alien flight school applicants to include all aircraft, regardless of the certified weight of the 

aircraft. The provision does not apply to aliens who are qualified 

and up-to-date with respective certificates and ratings recognized 

by the United States for aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more of classroom training. The bill 

also requires the TSA and Attorney General to jointly submit to 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure a report on the effectiveness of the new requirement not later than one year after the date of enactment. 

Section 9. Passenger identification 

Section 9 instructs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, in consultation with appropriate government and private interests, to develop guidelines to provide air carriers direction for 

detecting false or fraudulent identification. The guidelines are to be 

created within 180 days after the date of enactment. The guidelines 

must be provided to the airlines within 60 days of being issued and 

establish a joint government and industry council to implement 

guidelines. Within one year, the Under Secretary of Transportation 

for Security is to issue a report to Congress on these actions. 

Section 10. Passenger identification verification 

Section 10 allows the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish and carry out a program to require the use of 

identification verification technologies at airports to assist in the 

screening of passengers boarding aircraft. 

Section 11. Blast resistant cargo container technology 

Section 11 instructs the Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security and the Administrator of the FAA to jointly submit a report to Congress evaluating blast-resistant cargo container technology that may be used to protect against explosives placed in 

passenger luggage and cargo. The report is to be submitted within 

6 months following the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 12. Arming pilots against terrorism 

Section 12 directs the Transportation Security Administration to 

include all-cargo pilots as eligible applicants for the Federal Flight 

12

Deck Officer program. The Federal Flight Deck Officer program 

was established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–

296). 

Section 13. Report on defending aircraft from man-portable air defense systems (shoulder-fired missiles) 

Section 13 instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a report within 90 days on how to best 

defend turbo and jet passenger aircraft from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (shoulder-fired missiles). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

SUBPART III—SAFETY

CHAPTER 449—SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER I—REQUIREMENTS

§ 44901. Screening passengers and property 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked 

baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger 

aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air 

transportation or intrastate air transportation. In the case of 

flights and flight segments originating in the United States, the 

screening shall take place before boarding and shall be carried out 

by a Federal Government employee (as defined in section 2105 of 

title 5, United States Code), except as otherwise provided in section 

44919 or 44920 and except for identifying passengers and baggage 

for screening under the CAPPS and known shipper programs and 

conducting positive bag-match programs. 

(b) SUPERVISION OF SCREENING.—All screening of passengers and 

property at airports in the United States where screening is required under this section shall be supervised by uniformed Federal 

personnel of the Transportation Security Administration who shall 

have the power to order the dismissal of any individual performing 

such screening. 

(c) CHECKED BAGGAGE.—A system must be in operation to screen 

all checked baggage at all airports in the United States as soon as 

practicable but not later than the 60th day following the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. 

(d) EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.—

13

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security shall take all necessary action to ensure that—

(A) explosive detection systems are deployed as soon as 

possible to ensure that all United States airports described 

in section 44903(c) have sufficient explosive detection systems to screen all checked baggage no later than December 

31, 2002, and that as soon as such systems are in place at 

an airport, all checked baggage at the airport is screened 

by those systems; and 

(B) all systems deployed under subparagraph (A) are 

fully utilized; and 

(C) if explosive detection equipment at an airport is unavailable, all checked baggage is screened by an alternative means. 

(e) MANDATORY SCREENING WHERE EDS NOT YET AVAILABLE.— As soon as practicable but not later than the 60th day following the 

date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 

and until the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A) are met, the 

Under Secretary shall require alternative means for screening any 

piece of checked baggage that is not screened by an explosive detection system. Such alternative means may include 1 or more of the 

following: 

(1) A bag-match program that ensures that no checked baggage is placed aboard an aircraft unless the passenger who 

checked the baggage is aboard the aircraft. 

(2) Manual search. 

(3) Search by canine explosive detection units in combination 

with other means. 

(4) Other means or technology approved by the Under Secretary. 

ø(f) CARGO DEADLINE.—A system must be in operation to screen, 

inspect, or otherwise ensure the security of all cargo that is to be 

transported in all-cargo aircraft in air transportation and intrastate air transportation as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.¿

(f) CARGO.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security shall establish systems to screen, inspect, or otherwise 

ensure the security of all cargo that is to be transported in—

(A) passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air 

transportation; or 

(B) all-cargo aircraft in air transportation and intrastate 

air transportation. 

(2) STRATEGIC PLAN.—The Under Secretary shall develop a 

strategic plan to carry out paragraph (1).

(g) DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED PERSONNEL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall order the deployment of law enforcement personnel authorized to carry 

firearms at each airport security screening location to ensure 

passenger safety and national security. 

(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—Except at airports required to 

enter into agreements under subsection (c), the Under Secretary shall order the deployment of at least 1 law enforcement 

officer at each airport security screening location. At the 100 

14

largest airports in the United States, in terms of annual passenger enplanements for the most recent calendar year for 

which data are available, the Under Secretary shall order the 

deployment of additional law enforcement personnel at airport 

security screening locations if the Under Secretary determines 

that the additional deployment is necessary to ensure passenger safety and national security. 

(h) EXEMPTIONS AND ADVISING CONGRESS ON REGULATIONS.—The 

Under Secretary—

(1) may exempt from this section air transportation operations, except scheduled passenger operations of an air carrier 

providing air transportation under a certificate issued under 

section 41102 of this title or a permit issued under section 

41302 of this title; and 

(2) shall advise Congress of a regulation to be prescribed 

under this section at least 30 days before the effective date of 

the regulation, unless the Under Secretary decides an emergency exists requiring the regulation to become effective in 

fewer than 30 days and notifies Congress of that decision. 

* * * * * * *

§ 44921. Federal flight deck officer program 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security shall establish a program to deputize volunteer pilots of 

air carriers providing øpassenger¿ air transportation or intrastate 

øpassenger¿ air transportation as Federal law enforcement officers 

to defend the flight decks of aircraft of such air carriers against 

acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Such officers shall be known 

as ‘‘Federal flight deck officers’’. 

(b) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 months after the date of 

enactment of this section, the Under Secretary shall establish 

procedural requirements to carry out the program under this 

section. 

(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PROGRAM.—Beginning 3 months after 

the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary shall 

begin the process of training and deputizing pilots who are 

qualified to be Federal flight deck officers as Federal flight 

deck officers under the program. 

(3) ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED.—The procedural requirements 

established under paragraph (1) shall address the following 

issues: 

(A) The type of firearm to be used by a Federal flight 

deck officer. 

(B) The type of ammunition to be used by a Federal 

flight deck officer. 

(C) The standards and training needed to qualify and requalify as a Federal flight deck officer. 

(D) The placement of the firearm of a Federal flight deck 

officer on board the aircraft to ensure both its security and 

its ease of retrieval in an emergency. 

(E) An analysis of the risk of catastrophic failure of an 

aircraft as a result of the discharge (including an acciVerDate Jan 31 2003 03:49 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR038.XXX SR038
15

dental discharge) of a firearm to be used in the program 

into the avionics, electrical systems, or other sensitive 

areas of the aircraft. 

(F) The division of responsibility between pilots in the 

event of an act of criminal violence or air piracy if only 1 

pilot is a Federal flight deck officer and if both pilots are 

Federal flight deck officers. 

(G) Procedures for ensuring that the firearm of a Federal 

flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if there is a 

disturbance in the passenger cabin of the aircraft or if the 

pilot leaves the cockpit for personal reasons. 

(H) Interaction between a Federal flight deck officer and 

a Federal air marshal on board the aircraft. 

(I) The process for selection of pilots to participate in the 

program based on their fitness to participate in the program, including whether an additional background check 

should be required beyond that required by section 

44936(a)(1). 

(J) Storage and transportation of firearms between 

flights, including international flights, to ensure the security of the firearms, focusing particularly on whether such 

security would be enhanced by requiring storage of the 

firearm at the airport when the pilot leaves the airport to 

remain overnight away from the pilot’s base airport. 

(K) Methods for ensuring that security personnel will be 

able to identify whether a pilot is authorized to carry a 

firearm under the program. 

(L) Methods for ensuring that pilots (including Federal 

flight deck officers) will be able to identify whether a passenger is a law enforcement officer who is authorized to 

carry a firearm aboard the aircraft. 

(M) Any other issues that the Under Secretary considers 

necessary. 

(N) The Under Secretary’s decisions regarding the methods for implementing each of the foregoing procedural requirements shall be subject to review only for abuse of discretion. 

(4) PREFERENCE.—In selecting pilots to participate in the 

program, the Under Secretary shall give preference to pilots 

who are former military or law enforcement personnel. 

(5) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—Notwithstanding section 552 

of title 5 but subject to section 40119 of this title, information 

developed under paragraph (3)(E) shall not be disclosed. 

(6) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—The Under Secretary shall provide notice to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate after 

completing the analysis required by paragraph (3)(E). 

(7) MINIMIZATION OF RISK.—If the Under Secretary determines as a result of the analysis under paragraph (3)(E) that 

there is a significant risk of the catastrophic failure of an aircraft as a result of the discharge of a firearm, the Under Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to minimize 

that risk. 

(c) TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND EQUIPMENT.—

16

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall only be obligated to provide the training, supervision, and equipment necessary for a pilot to be a Federal flight deck officer under this 

section at no expense to the pilot or the air carrier employing 

the pilot. 

(2) TRAINING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall base the requirements for the training of Federal flight deck officers 

under subsection (b) on the training standards applicable 

to Federal air marshals; except that the Under Secretary 

shall take into account the differing roles and responsibilities of Federal flight deck officers and Federal air marshals. 

(B) ELEMENTS.—The training of a Federal flight deck officer shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: 

(i) Training to ensure that the officer achieves the 

level of proficiency with a firearm required under subparagraph (C)(i). 

(ii) Training to ensure that the officer maintains exclusive control over the officer’s firearm at all times, 

including training in defensive maneuvers. 

(iii) Training to assist the officer in determining 

when it is appropriate to use the officer’s firearm and 

when it is appropriate to use less than lethal force. 

(C) TRAINING IN USE OF FIREARMS.—

(i) STANDARD.—In order to be deputized as a Federal 

flight deck officer, a pilot must achieve a level of proficiency with a firearm that is required by the Under 

Secretary. Such level shall be comparable to the level 

of proficiency required of Federal air marshals. 

(ii) CONDUCT OF TRAINING.—The training of a Federal flight deck officer in the use of a firearm may be 

conducted by the Under Secretary or by a firearms 

training facility approved by the Under Secretary. 

(iii) REQUALIFICATION.—The Under Secretary shall 

require a Federal flight deck officer to requalify to 

carry a firearm under the program. Such requalification shall occur at an interval required by the Under 

Secretary. 

(d) DEPUTIZATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary may deputize, as a 

Federal flight deck officer under this section, a pilot who submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such an officer and 

whom the Under Secretary determines is qualified to be such 

an officer. 

(2) QUALIFICATION.—A pilot is qualified to be a Federal flight 

deck officer under this section if—

(A) the pilot is employed by an air carrier; 

(B) the Under Secretary determines (in the Under Secretary’s discretion) that the pilot meets the standards established by the Under Secretary for being such an officer; 

and 

(C) the Under Secretary determines that the pilot has 

completed the training required by the Under Secretary. 

17

(3) DEPUTIZATION BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—The Under 

Secretary may request another Federal agency to deputize, as 

Federal flight deck officers under this section, those pilots that 

the Under Secretary determines are qualified to be such officers. 

(4) REVOCATION.—The Under Secretary may, (in the Under 

Secretary’s discretion) revoke the deputization of a pilot as a 

Federal flight deck officer if the Under Secretary finds that the 

pilot is no longer qualified to be such an officer. 

(e) COMPENSATION.—Pilots participating in the program under 

this section shall not be eligible for compensation from the Federal 

Government for services provided as a Federal flight deck officer. 

The Federal Government and air carriers shall not be obligated to 

compensate a pilot for participating in the program or for the pilot’s training or qualification and requalification to carry firearms 

under the program. 

(f) AUTHORITY TO CARRY FIREARMS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall authorize a Federal flight deck officer to carry a firearm while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the officer may purchase a firearm and carry that firearm aboard an aircraft of which the officer is the pilot in accordance with this section if the firearm 

is of a type that may be used under the program. 

(2) PREEMPTION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

Federal or State law, a Federal flight deck officer, whenever 

necessary to participate in the program, may carry a firearm 

in any State and from 1 State to another State. 

(3) CARRYING FIREARMS OUTSIDE UNITED STATES.—In consultation with the Secretary of State, the Under Secretary may 

take such action as may be necessary to ensure that a Federal 

flight deck officer may carry a firearm in a foreign country 

whenever necessary to participate in the program. 

(g) AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE.—Notwithstanding section 

44903(d), the Under Secretary shall prescribe the standards and 

circumstances under which a Federal flight deck officer may use, 

while the program under this section is in effect, force (including 

lethal force) against an individual in the defense of the flight deck 

of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. 

(h) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—

(1) LIABILITY OF AIR CARRIERS.—An air carrier shall not be 

liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State 

court arising out of a Federal flight deck officer’s use of or failure to use a firearm. 

(2) LIABILITY OF FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS.—A Federal 

flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any action 

brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or 

omissions of the officer in defending the flight deck of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the 

officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. 

(3) LIABILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—For purposes of an 

action against the United States with respect to an act or omission of a Federal flight deck officer in defending the flight deck 

of an aircraft, the officer shall be treated as an employee of the 

18

Federal Government under chapter 171 of title 28, relating to 

tort claims procedure. 

(i) PROCEDURES FOLLOWING ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES.—If an accidental discharge of a firearm under the pilot program results in 

the injury or death of a passenger or crew member on an aircraft, 

the Under Secretary—

(1) shall revoke the deputization of the Federal flight deck 

officer responsible for that firearm if the Under Secretary determines that the discharge was attributable to the negligence 

of the officer; and 

(2) if the Under Secretary determines that a shortcoming in 

standards, training, or procedures was responsible for the accidental discharge, the Under Secretary may temporarily suspend the program until the shortcoming is corrected. 

(j) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF AIR CARRIERS.—No air carrier 

shall prohibit or threaten any retaliatory action against a pilot employed by the air carrier from becoming a Federal flight deck officer 

under this section. No air carrier shall—

(1) prohibit a Federal flight deck officer from piloting an aircraft operated by the air carrier; or 

(2) terminate the employment of a Federal flight deck officer, 

solely on the basis of his or her volunteering for or participating in the program under this section. 

(k) APPLICABILITY.— (1) EXEMPTION.—This section shall not apply to air carriers 

operating under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and to pilots employed by such carriers to the extent 

that such carriers and pilots are covered by section 135.119 of 

such title or any successor to such section. 

(2) PILOT DEFINED.—The term ‘‘pilot’’ means an individual 

who has final authority and responsibility for the operation 

and safety of the flight øor, if more than 1 pilot is required for 

the operation of the aircraft or by the regulations under which 

the flight is being conducted, the individual designated as second in command.¿ or any other flight deck crew member.

(3) ALL-CARGO AIR TRANSPORTATION.—For the purposes of 

this section, the term air transportation includes all-cargo air 

transportation. 

§ 44922. Regular inspections of air cargo shipping facilities 

The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish a system for the regular inspection of shipping facilities for 

shipments of cargo transported in air transportation or intrastate 

air transportation to ensure that appropriate security controls, systems, and protocols are observed, and shall enter into arrangements 

with the civil aviation authorities, or other appropriate officials, of 

foreign countries to ensure that inspections are conducted on a regular basis at shipping facilities for cargo transported in air transportation to the United States. 

§ 44923. Air cargo security 

(a) DATABASE.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish an industry-wide pilot program database of 

known shippers of cargo that is to be transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transVerDate Jan 31 2003 03:49 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR038.XXX SR038
19

portation or intrastate air transportation. The Under Secretary 

shall use the results of the pilot program to improve the known 

shipper program. 

(b) INDIRECT AIR CARRIERS.— (1) RANDOM INSPECTIONS.—The Under Secretary shall conduct random audits, investigations, and inspections of indirect 

air carrier facilities to determine if the indirect air carriers are 

meeting the security requirements of this title. 

(2) ENSURING COMPLIANCE.—The Under Secretary may take 

such actions as may be appropriate to promote and ensure compliance with the security standards established under this title. 

(3) NOTICE OF FAILURES.—The Under Secretary shall notify 

the Secretary of Transportation of any indirect air carrier that 

fails to meet security standards established under this title. 

(4) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE.—The Secretary, as appropriate, shall suspend or revoke any certificate or 

authority issued under chapter 411 to an indirect air carrier 

immediately upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary. 

Any indirect air carrier whose certificate is suspended or revoked under this subparagraph may appeal the suspension or 

revocation in accordance with procedures established under this 

title for the appeal of suspensions and revocations. 

(5) INDIRECT AIR CARRIER.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘indirect air carrier’’ has the meaning given that term in part 1548 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. 

(c) CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY NEEDS.—In implementing air 

cargo security requirements under this title, the Under Secretary 

may take into consideration the extraordinary air transportation 

needs of small or isolated communities and unique operational 

characteristics of carriers that serve those communities.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL

§ 44939. Training to operate certain aircraft 

(a) WAITING PERIOD.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A person subject to regulation under this 

part may provide training in the operation of øany aircraft 

having a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 

pounds or more¿ an aircraft to an alien (as defined in section 

101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(3))) or to any other individual specified by the Under 

Secretary of Transportation for Security only if—

ø(1)¿ (A) that person has first notified the Attorney General that the individual has requested such training and 

furnished the Attorney General with that individual’s 

identification in such form as the Attorney General may 

require; and 

ø(2)¿ (B) the Attorney General has not directed, within 

45 days after being notified under øparagraph (1),¿ subparagraph (A), that person not to provide the requested 

training because the Attorney General has determined that 

the individual presents a risk to aviation or national security.

20

(2) EXCEPTION.—The requirements of paragraph (1) shall not 

apply to an alien who—

(A) has earned a Federal Aviation Administration type 

rating in an aircraft; or 

(B) holds a current pilot’s license or foreign equivalent 

commercial pilot’s license that permits the person to fly an 

aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 

more than 12,500 pounds as defined by the International 

Civil Aviation Organization in Annex 1 to the Convention 

on International Civil Aviation.

(b) INTERRUPTION OF TRAINING.—If the Attorney General, more 

than 45 days after receiving notification under subsection (a) from 

a person providing training described in subsection (a), determines 

that the individual presents a risk to aviation or national security, 

the Attorney General shall immediately notify the person providing 

the training of the determination and that person shall immediately terminate the training. 

ø(c) COVERED TRAINING.—For the purposes of subsection (a), 

training includes in-flight training, training in a simulator, and 

any other form or aspect of training.¿

(c) COVERED TRAINING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection (a), training includes in-flight training, training in a simulator, and any other 

form or aspect of training. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—For the purposes of subsection (a), training 

does not include classroom instruction (also known as ground 

training), which may be provided to an alien during the 45-day 

period applicable to the alien under that subsection.

(d) SECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES.—The Under 

Secretary shall require flight schools to conduct a security awareness program for flight school employees to increase their awareness of suspicious circumstances and activities of individuals enrolling in or attending flight school.

Æ